SC notice to Centre on PIL to bring IB, RAW under statute
- No permission for Gujarat roadshow: Arvind Kejriwal released after brief detention
- RJD, Congress agree on seat-sharing deal for Bihar
- Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance of ink attack on Subrata Roy
- Rahul slams BJP, says party wants to vest power in one person
- Sheila Dikshit appointed Kerala Governor; Congress-RJD pact likely today
The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Centre on a PIL demanding regulatory mechanism and accountability of Intelligence Bureau (IB), Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) and National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) under a statutory regime.
Also issuing notices to the three intelligence agencies, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir asked them to file replies within six weeks.
The Bench requested Attorney General G E Vahanvati to assist the court on the next date of hearing.
Earlier, senior advocates Anil Divan and Prashant Bhushan brought to the notice of the court that petitioner NGO 'CPIL' has amended the prayers of the writ and instead of a directive to the Centre, they now sought a declaration that RAW, IB and NTRO, "which are functioning without any appropriate legislative oversight are a threat to the rule of law and fundamental rights".
Questioning the very basis of policing powers being exercised by the agencies in absence of any statutory provision, Divan said that phone tapping and audio-video recording were examples of powers that these agencies exercised without being authorised under any law.
Citing excerpts from the books written by a few former intelligence agencies' officers, the lawyer said their writings highlighted several instances of illegalities and corrupt practices.
The court however refused to entertain this argument. "Somebody says something in his book will be a matter of personal opinion. Conversation between a former Prime Minister and an officer cannot be a subject matter of this petition," it said.
Divan then said the Bench should, in the larger interest of public, admit this petition since the actions of the agencies pertained to violation of the right to privacy.
"The court needs to look at the issue. All we want is a mechanism where these agencies are made accountable. Let the Supreme Court issue some guidelines. The court should also take into account a possibility of every state having one such agency of its own by way of an executive order," argued Divan.